Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Utah, 28807-28812 [2016-10893]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28807-28812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10893]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0107; FRL-9946-18-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Interstate Transport for Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action 
on the portions of two submissions from the State of Utah that are 
intended to demonstrate that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets 
certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or 
CAA). These submissions address the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. Specifically, the 
EPA is proposing to approve interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 
2008 Pb NAAQS, and proposing to disapprove prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2016-0107 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR,

[[Page 28808]]

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. (303) 312-7104, 
clark.adam@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not 
submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For 
CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as 
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, 
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your 
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and 
secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (73 
FR 16436, March 27, 2008). On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the level 
of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964, 
Nov. 12, 2008).
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to 
submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) 
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or 
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 
requires states to address structural SIP elements such as requirements 
for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that 
are designed to provide for implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP submission required by these 
provisions is referred to as the ``infrastructure'' SIP. Section 110(a) 
imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to the EPA 
for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state 
submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances.
    CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute 
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 
NAAQS in another state (known as the ``good neighbor'' provision). The 
two provisions of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant 
contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interfere with 
maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain 
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with 
measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan 
for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4).
    In this action, the EPA is only addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard to the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb 
NAAQS.

III. State Submissions and EPA's Assessment

    The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Department or UDEQ) 
submitted a certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS on January 19, 2012, a certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on January 31, 2013, and a supplement 
regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS on December 22, 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 2008 ozone supplement was submitted 
as part of Utah's infrastructure SIP certification for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of these infrastructure certifications addressed all of the 
infrastructure elements including element (D).\2\ In this action, we 
are only addressing element (D) prongs 1 and 2 from the 2008 Pb 
certification, 2008 ozone certification, and the December 22, 2015 
supplement which addressed prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. All 
other infrastructure elements from these certifications are being 
addressed in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For discussion of other infrastructure elements, see EPA's 
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),'' September 
13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 Ozone NAAQS

    In its January 31, 2013 2008 ozone infrastructure submittal, UDEQ 
addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 by citing EPA Administrator 
Gina McCarthy's November 19, 2012 memo \3\ which outlined the EPA's 
intention to abide by the decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in EME 
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). 
The EME Homer City decision addressed the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (CSAPR) promulgated by the EPA to address the interstate transport 
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS, the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, 
and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Among other things, the D.C. 
Circuit held that states did not have an obligation to submit SIPs 
addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements 
as to any NAAQS until the EPA first quantified each state's emissions 
reduction obligation. Id. at 30-31. In its submittal, the Department 
noted that the EPA had not quantified Utah's transport obligation as to 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that Utah's infrastructure SIP was therefore 
adequate with regard to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memo from Gina McCarthy to Air Division Directors, Regions 
1-10 re: Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and State 
Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision 
Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Nov. 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the UDEQ submission, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. 
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit's EME Homer City 
decision on CSAPR and held, among other things, that under the plain 
language of the CAA, states must submit SIPs addressing interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within three 
years of the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, regardless of 
whether EPA first provides guidance, technical data or rulemaking to 
quantify the state's obligation. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 
L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601

[[Page 28809]]

(2014). UDEQ therefore additionally addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1 
and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as part of its December 22, 2015 
infrastructure submittal that otherwise addressed the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. As stated, the EPA is proposing action on both 
the January 31, 2013 and December 22, 2015 certifications with regard 
to prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    In its subsequent December 22, 2015 infrastructure submittal, UDEQ 
acknowledged the changed legal landscape, and asserted that emissions 
from the State did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. 
The Department cited air quality modeling assessing interstate 
transport of ozone that was released by the EPA on August 4, 2015, and 
explained that it did not consider the modeled contribution levels to 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area 
and in southern California to be significant.
    As noted by UDEQ, the EPA shared technical information with states 
to assist them with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA developed this technical information 
following the same approach used to evaluate interstate contribution in 
CSAPR in order to support the recently proposed Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 
2015) (``CSAPR Update Rule''). In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air 
quality analyses to determine whether an eastern state's contribution 
to downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. 
If a state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality 
threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not 
considered to significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance of 
the standard in those downwind areas. If a state exceeded that 
threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into 
account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if 
any, emissions reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated 
below, we believe it is appropriate to use the same approach the EPA 
used in CSAPR to establish an air quality threshold for the evaluation 
of interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) containing air quality modeling data that projects interstate 
transport contributions for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.\4\ The modeling data released in the NODA was also used to 
support the proposed CSAPR Update Rule and is also cited by UDEQ in its 
updated 2008 ozone submittal. Since the moderate area attainment date 
for the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018, states will use 2015 
through 2017 ambient ozone data in order to demonstrate attainment by 
this attainment deadline--meaning the 2017 ozone season will be the 
last full season from which data can be used to determine attainment of 
the NAAQS. The D.C. Circuit's decision in North Carolina v. EPA 
requires that the EPA coordinate interstate transport compliance 
deadlines with downwind nonattainment deadlines. As noted in EPA's 
proposed CSAPR Update Rule, the Agency interprets the North Carolina 
decision to compel EPA to identify upwind reductions and implementation 
programs to achieve these reductions, to the extent possible, for the 
2017 ozone season. Therefore, the EPA determined that 2017 is an 
appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining 
interstate transport for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Agency used 
photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at 
air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone 
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the 
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 
model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions 
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites 
with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA used 
nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone 
Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability 
Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected 
receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling 
domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent 
portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August 
4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA used the modeling released in the NODA to support its 
proposed CSAPR Update rulemaking (80 FR 75706, Dec. 3, 2015). As 
discussed in our CSAPR Update Rule proposal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 
the air quality modeling (1) identified locations in the U.S. where the 
EPA anticipates nonattainment or maintenance issues in 2017 for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS (these are identified as nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions from 
emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the 
receptors in 2017. Id. at 75720-30. Consistent with the framework 
established in CSAPR, the EPA proposed to use a threshold of one 
percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify 
linkages between upwind states and the downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors. In the proposed CSAPR Update Rule, the EPA 
considered eastern states \5\ whose contributions to a specific 
receptor meet or exceed the threshold ``linked'' to that receptor and 
we analyzed these states further to determine if emissions reductions 
might be required from each state to address the downwind air quality 
problem. Id. at 75728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the proposed CSAPR Update Rule, ``eastern'' 
states refer to all contiguous states east of the Rocky Mountains, 
specifically not including: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New 
Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to western states, the EPA noted that the 2017 implementation 
timeframe constrained the opportunity to evaluate the applicability of 
these criteria to such states and whether additional criteria should be 
considered in certain circumstances as to western states. Therefore, 
the EPA proposed to focus the rulemaking on the eastern states while 
requesting comment on whether to include western states. Id. at 75709. 
Consistent with our statements in the proposed CSAPR Update Rule, the 
EPA intends to address western states, like Utah, on a case-by-case 
basis. The modeling data released in the NODA on August 4, 2015, are 
the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our 
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. We 
intend to use these data to help evaluate the state's submittals and 
any potential emission reduction obligations as to the 2008 ozone 
standard under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    As noted earlier, in CSAPR the EPA proposed an air quality 
threshold of one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment 
on whether one percent was appropriate.\6\ The EPA evaluated the 
comments received and ultimately determined that one percent was an 
appropriately low threshold

[[Page 28810]]

because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions 
to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple 
upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or 
lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the contribution 
modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of different possible 
thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's analysis showed 
that the one percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total 
pollution transport affecting downwind states, while the use of higher 
thresholds would exclude increasingly larger percentages of total 
transport. For example, at a five percent threshold, the majority of 
interstate pollution transport affecting downwind receptors would be 
excluded.\7\ In addition, the EPA determined that it was important to 
use a relatively lower one percent threshold because there are adverse 
health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels.\8\ The 
EPA also determined that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would 
result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentages of 
fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport captured relative 
to the amounts captured at the one percent level. The EPA determined 
that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction 
responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very 
small impact on those receptors -- an indicator that emission controls 
in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the 
downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold 
below one percent is necessary or desirable.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
    \7\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID 
# EPA-hq-oar-2009-0491.
    \8\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a 
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple 
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low 
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's 
previous use of a one percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single 
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\10\ The projected contribution from 
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled 
ozone, and then compared to the one percent threshold. We concluded 
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold 
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was 
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, 
and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any 
future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\11\ The EPA has subsequently 
proposed to use the same threshold for purposes of evaluating 
interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard in eastern 
states in the CSAPR Update Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's recent air quality modeling shows that multiple upwind 
states collectively contributed to projected downwind nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors in Colorado. In particular, the EPA found that 
the total upwind states' contribution to ozone concentrations (from 
linked and unlinked states) to identified downwind air quality problems 
in Colorado is about 11 percent.\12\ Thus, the EPA has found that the 
collective contribution of emissions from upwind states represent a 
large portion of the ozone concentrations at projected nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors in Colorado. As noted, the Agency has 
consistently found that the one percent threshold is appropriate for 
identifying interstate transport linkages for states collectively 
contributing to downwind ozone nonattainment or maintenance problems 
because that threshold captures a high percentage of the total 
pollution transport affecting downwind receptors. The EPA believes 
contribution from an individual state equal to or above one percent of 
the NAAQS could be considered significant where the collective 
contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states is responsible 
for a considerable portion of the downwind air quality problem 
regardless of where the receptor is geographically located. In this 
case, five of the states contributing to those identified receptors, 
including Utah, contribute emissions greater than or equal to one 
percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Given this data, the EPA is proposing 
to find that the NODA modeling and its use of the one percent threshold 
are also appropriate to determine linkages from Utah to downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Colorado with respect to the 
2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The stated 11% is based on the highest upwind contributions 
to nonattainment or maintenance receptors in each area. All 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors had upwind contributions at 
9% or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 1 and 2 summarize the air quality modeling results from the 
August 4, 2015 NODA modeling. The modeling indicates that Utah 
contributes emissions above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with 
respect to four receptors in the Denver, Colorado area. These tables 
show the monitors in the Denver area to which Utah emissions are 
modeled to contribute above one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The NODA modeling had taken into account the shutdown of 
the Carbon Power Plant, which was shut down in April 2015. See 
Carbon Permit Revocation Letter, in the docket for this action.

                     Table 1--Maintenance Receptors With Utah Contribution Modeled Above 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Utah modeled
              Monitor I.D.                           State                      County             contribution
                                                                                                       (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80050002................................  Colorado..................  Arapahoe..................            1.66
80590011................................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            1.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table 2--Nonattainment Receptors With Utah Contribution Modeled Above 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Utah modeled
              Monitor I.D.                           State                      County             contribution
                                                                                                       (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80350004................................  Colorado..................  Douglas...................            1.59

[[Page 28811]]

 
80590006................................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            0.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah's largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment 
site is 1.59 ppb, and its largest contribution to any projected 
downwind maintenance-only site is 1.66 ppb. Since the NODA modeling 
indicates that the contributions from Utah are above the one percent 
threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, the EPA is proposing to 
determine that Utah significantly contributes to nonattainment and 
interferences with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Denver, 
Colorado area.
    UDEQ states that, despite the modeling results, emissions from the 
State do not significantly contribute to nonattainment in the Denver 
area, but the State does not provide any technical analysis to explain 
why it believes the modeling results are inaccurate or why, if the 
results are accurate, the State's level of contribution to Denver-area 
receptors should be deemed insignificant. Moreover, UDEQ does not 
address the State's modeled contributions to projected downwind 
maintenance receptors identified by the EPA. Rather, UDEQ cites various 
SIP-approved area source rules which it asserts will result in 
additional reductions in ozone precursor emissions as further evidence 
that emissions from the State do not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The 
Department listed several VOC emissions limitations on various 
industries submitted as part of the State's greater PM2.5 
control strategy which were recently approved by EPA.\14\ UDEQ also 
pointed to a rule prohibiting the sale of water heaters that do not 
comply with low NOX emission rates which will go into effect 
on November 1, 2017. UDEQ argued that because NOX and VOC 
are precursors to ozone, these emission limitations would further 
reduce ozone transport to nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 
both Colorado and California, but failed to quantify or explain how 
these limitations would significantly reduce Utah ozone emissions. UDEQ 
did not discuss emissions limits or reductions from any other source 
categories, such as large electric generating units (EGUs) within the 
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For more detail, see EPA's final action on these area 
source rules at 81 FR 9343, February 25, 2016, and the associated 
docket at EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though the EPA considers the measures UDEQ described to be 
beneficial in reducing ozone transport, UDEQ has not provided any 
analysis to demonstrate that the reductions will be sufficient to 
significantly reduce Utah ozone emissions. The Department did not 
quantify the total anticipated reductions in NOX and VOC 
emissions from its listed regulations or evaluate the impact of those 
reductions in downwind air quality at the Denver area receptors. As 
explained above, the NODA modeling indicates that in spite of the 
measures Utah describes, emissions from sources in Utah contribute well 
above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area. 
UDEQ has not provided any technical analysis to contradict that 
information.
    UDEQ also states in the 2015 submission that the State does not 
believe it significantly contributes or interferes with maintenance of 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in southern California, citing the State's VOC and 
NOX emission limitations. UDEQ also cites the general west 
to east wind direction in the western U.S. as further evidence that 
Utah emissions are unlikely to significantly impact ozone pollution in 
southern California. Although the State did not provide a particular 
technical analysis to support this conclusion, EPA's modeling released 
in the August 4, 2015 NODA confirms UDEQ's assertion that the State 
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance in California.
    As explained earlier, UDEQ's SIP submissions do not provide an 
adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the SIP contains 
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 
any other state. Moreover, EPA's most recent modeling indicates that 
emissions from Utah are projected to contribute to downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area. 
Accordingly, EPA proposes to disapprove the portion of the January 31, 
2013 SIP submittal and the December 22, 2015 submittal addressing CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed action 
and will consider public comments received during the comment period.

2008 Pb NAAQS

    UDEQ's analysis of potential interstate transport for the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS discussed the lack of sources with significant Pb emissions near 
the State's borders. The Department also noted that there are no Pb 
nonattainment areas in states neighboring Utah.
    As noted in our October 14, 2011 Infrastructure Guidance Memo, 
there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse 
fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. See ``Guidance on 
Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 
for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS).'' October 14, 2011 at 8. For this reason, the EPA found that 
the requirements of subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) 
could be satisfied through a state's assessment as to whether or not 
emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to their state 
borders have emissions that impact the neighboring state such that they 
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
in that state. Id. at 8. In that guidance document, the EPA further 
specified that any source appeared unlikely to contribute significantly 
to nonattainment unless it was located less than two miles from a state 
border and emitted at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. UDEQ's 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis specifically noted that there are no 
sources in the State that meet both of these criteria. EPA concurs with 
the State's analysis and conclusion that no Utah sources have the 
combination of Pb emission levels and proximity to nearby nonattainment 
or maintenance areas to contribute significantly to nonattainment in or 
interfere with maintenance by other states for this NAAQS. Utah's SIP 
is therefore adequate to ensure that such impacts do

[[Page 28812]]

not occur. We are proposing to approve UDEQ's submittal with regard to 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 
Pb NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and proposing to disapprove 
prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on consideration of 
modeling results in EPA's August 4, 2015 NODA. The EPA is soliciting 
public comments on this proposed action and will consider public 
comments received during the comment period.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, 
this proposed action merely proposes approval of some state law as 
meeting federal requirements and proposes disapproval of other state 
law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action 
does not propose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land 
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 26, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-10893 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P